Template talk:py-to-ipa
Add topicDeletion debate
[edit]
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
- See also Wiktionary:BP#For_the_lack_of_a_.22Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion_review.22_page, Template talk:str index.
User:Ruakh tagged this (reason: "very expensive") but didn't list it here. He cited previous deletion of Template:str index as the rationale for this, which I would like to request to be reviewed. Also, as a result of tagging, all pages linking to this template don't function properly now. Hbrug 22:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- I made an edit to Template:py-to-ipa which should take care of the latter problem (i.e., the RFD tag should no longer be transcluded). —AugPi 23:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Would it still be too expensive if we made it only work substed? - -sche (discuss) 23:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Is it really too expensive? I mean, Wikipedia uses it non-substitutively, other Wiktionaries (fr, zh, vi, etc.) use it non-substitutively; if it really were that expensive (which is true for the uncreated Template:str right), Wikipedia would have banned all non-substitution uses of this, right? Hbrug 23:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- No, at the English Wikipedia they don't even seem to have a concept of something being "too expensive". Templates which loop through parserfunctions thousands of times are used on virtually every page. --Yair rand 10:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Is it really too expensive? I mean, Wikipedia uses it non-substitutively, other Wiktionaries (fr, zh, vi, etc.) use it non-substitutively; if it really were that expensive (which is true for the uncreated Template:str right), Wikipedia would have banned all non-substitution uses of this, right? Hbrug 23:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- w:WP:DWAP. Judging from the results of other wikis, these templates don't seem to be very harmful to viewing, loading or editing (this RfD page is taking much longer to load than pages previously using string templates); perhaps we should put this aside and consider using the functions that will make editing more convenient? The advantages of using these templates are enormous, especially in transliteration. For example, a single template {{ug-noun}} (much better than {{ug-?|ئ|ۇ|ن|ى|ۋ|ې|ر|س|ى|ت|ې|ت|ى}}could be placed at the Uyghur entry ئۇنىۋېرسىتېتى, which would automatically generate:
- saving the need to manually transliterate and avoiding the possibility of human errors. I wrote an auto-transliterator for Tibetan at Template:bo-transli (deleted), relying on the str index template, which would give the Wylie transliteration of the entry title in Tibetan script. Burmese, Khmer, Uyghur, Japanese, Hindi-Urdu (yes?), Vietnamese (vi.wikt uses it to generate Vietnamese pronunciation in six dialects) and other languages (fr.wikt uses it to form Spanish plurals) can also benefit from this template. Hbrug 11:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- (Somewhat relevant: There is an open bug for enabling the Transliterator Extension here, but unfortunately there are a few issues blocking it...) --Yair rand 11:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- saving the need to manually transliterate and avoiding the possibility of human errors. I wrote an auto-transliterator for Tibetan at Template:bo-transli (deleted), relying on the str index template, which would give the Wylie transliteration of the entry title in Tibetan script. Burmese, Khmer, Uyghur, Japanese, Hindi-Urdu (yes?), Vietnamese (vi.wikt uses it to generate Vietnamese pronunciation in six dialects) and other languages (fr.wikt uses it to form Spanish plurals) can also benefit from this template. Hbrug 11:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- (hmm.. Please have a look at the code for Template:bo-transli. It's a little bit difficult for Tibetan, which uses an abugida. Inherent "a" vowel is unmarked so a great amount of code is used to ascertain where the vowel should be..) Hbrug 11:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I do think that this particular template should be only substituted onto pages, first of all because pronunciation is something that is very unlikely to change in the near future, and more importantly because it makes these pronunciation sections unparseable by automated programs (as in User:Robert Ullmann/IPAchars). -- Liliana • 20:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. --Yair rand 01:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned, made subst:-only, and kept. —RuakhTALK 15:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
Unused.--Zcreator (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. Wyang (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- RFD failed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)